Fr. Michael Azkoul's new book is characterized by the same clarity and
traditional outlook as his other books. It provides a sustained argument for
and coherent presentation of the Orthodox view on the modern issue of the
ordination of women to the priesthood andother related topics. Its contribution
lies in voicing once again what the vast majority of the Orthodox Christians
believe, which, sometimes, seems neglected or even obscure, because of the
aggressive opposition of a tiny but vocal minority. Many of the authors basic
arguments remind us of those expounded at the Inter-Orthodox Symposium of
Rhodes, Greece, which was organized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople in 1988 and dealt with "The Place of the Woman in the Orthodox
Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women." The volume on that
Symposium (Tertios Publications, Katerini, Greece 1992) "showed beyond doubt,"
as its editor stated, "that the Orthodox Tradition leaves no room for the
ordination of women to the priesthood." Fr. Azkoul's present volume draws the
same conclusion but, being the work of a single author, provides a more focused
and consistent reasoning for the Orthodox position and supplies meaningful
answers to objections raised by opponents or revisionists. As such, it
clarifies many aspects of the issues discussed and provokes a more meaningful
and balanced discussion.

An idea growing in popularity among some Orthodox over the last few
decades has been the admission of women to the sacerdotal priesthood. The
sourcefor this idea is not the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Councils of the
Church, but comes to us from the world, specifically the feminist movement. It
has implications for the secularization of the Church. On one level, advocates
view the ordination of women as something owed the female sex, a sign of the
Church's repentance, so to speak, atonement for the centuries of female
stereotyping and powerlessness, that is to say, denying her the right to
creatively express her ingenuity, to exercise her freedom and to exhibit her
dedication.

Not unaware of the objections in holy Tradition to the ordination of
women to the presbytery (and consecration to the episcopacy), the strategy of
its proponents is to declare this innovation an "open question." It is, in
fact, not a subject to be debated. The theological and ecclesial facts need
only to be reviewed to make the point. We turn in a moment for an understanding
of those facts to the only authorities (criteria) available to us - the
Scriptures, the Fathers and the Canons. They have unalterably defined the place
of women in the Church from the beginning.

Female aspirations to the priesthood are not something new. It has
antecedents that reach through the Middle Ages to the time of the Apostles. The
occasion for St. Paul's comment on the subject was the threat to the Church
from heresies. Early heretics, such as the Gnostics, Montanists and
Priscillianists, had "ordained" priestesses. But women in the priestly office
was naturally part of their religion. In the Orthodox Church, however, women
had no access to the priesthood, and her members were aware that their absence
from its ranks was natural and necessary to her life. The Church understood
priesthood to be a call from God, not the result of "cultural structures" or
"political ideology" which unfairly favored men. Likewise, "the subordination
of women" (which does not constitute inferiority) to the male was
recognized as intrinsic to "the order of creation" and "the order of
redemption" or "salvation."

With this doctrine we might expect that the history of women in the
so-called "undivided Church" had been a showcase of contentment. It was not.
There were instances of Christian women who, indifferent to the ecclesial and
canonical restrictions, invaded the sanctuary. In his letter to St. Cyprian of
Carthage, St. Firmilian of Cassarea (d. 268) mentioned a woman who presumed to
consecrate the elements and perform the Eucharist with no regard to the norms
of the Church.(1) In 494, Pope Gelasius declared, "We have noted with vexation
that contempt for divine truths has reached such a level that even women, it is
reported, serve at the holy altars. Everything that is entrusted exclusively to
men is performed by the sex that has no right to do so."(2) Two centuries
later, the Saxon King, Louis the Pious (778-840), complained that "in some
provinces, contrary to divine law and canonical prescription, women are
entering the sanctuary. They handle sacred vessels without fear, passing out
clerical vestments to the priests, and even distributing the Body and Blood of
the Lord (and other indecent things) to the people... It is astonishing that
this practice, forbidden by the Christian religion, should have crept in
anywhere... undoubtedly through the negligence of some bishop."(3)

Despite the inexplicable behavior of these females, the admission of
women to the priesthood has never been a theological problem in the Orthodox
Church; it has never been a "real cause," as Fr. Alexander Schmemann once
observed. In part, Orthodox women have understood the reason for their
exclusion. Also, they were never without their own ministries, for example, the
presbytides or "elderly women"(4) who, like the deaconesses that later
replaced them, humbly served the Church. They were usually widows, who
interceded with the priest and bishop on behalf of women, helped the clergy
with their baptism, prayed with them, nursed the sick and dealt with women's
personal problems.

The deaconess (not a female deacon) was counted with the lower orders,
the sub-deacon, readers, chanters, sextons, and doorkeepers. Unfortunately, in
the sixth century, the Emperor Justinian uncanonically made 40 deaconesses part
of the 425 "clergy" that served Hagia Sophia. They entered the sanctuary and,
other than preaching or communing the people, performed the duties of a deacon,
according to the "Rite of the Byzantine Deaconess." This episode was an
aberration in the life of the Church, rewarded finally by the virtual negation
of this woman's ministry. This order enjoys a certain revival today.

Unsatisfied with this "empowerment," contemporary Orthodox feminists
have scrutinized every aspect of holy Tradition to find historical support for
their "cause"; but not without first "changing the rules of the game."
Influenced by Western secular thought, they presume to offer a new
understanding of the Church's Tradition and, necessarily, her Scriptures. The
very concept of Tradition (which includes the Fathers), they insist, must be
reexamined to determine "what Tradition is and what it is not. Obedience to
Tradition must not be seen as a kind of dead fundamentalism. It does not mean
that nothing can ever be done for the first time. Holy Tradition, rightly
understood, is dynamic, not static and inert"(5) With just these few words, the
entire ecclesial and social legacy of the Orthodox Faith is thrown into
doubt.

The issue is further exacerbated by the contemporary religious 
that is to say, ecumenical  climate. With special regard to the
Scriptures, the Coptic feminist, Marie Assad, insists that the Scriptures
especially must be read "in the context of the present, always conscious
of the difference between the cultural and historical setting of the past and
present. Women in particular have an active role to play in re-reading
Scripture accoring to our new awareness of ourselves and our role in
society."(6) There is nothing unexpected in her remarks, but we have a right to
ask if Ms.Assad speaks for all non-Chalcedonian or Oriental Orthodox (or any
other religious denomination); and whether she is aware that her demands for
"updating" would necessarily involve a conflation of Tradition with modern
secular ideology, and it would be this unlawful synthesis that would account
for the admission of women to the priesthood.

From an Orthodox point of view, is there not something objectionable
in any "cause," however popular, whose fundamental principles are drawn not
from Tradition but from external sources, especially when that Tradition a
priori forbids the mongrelization of its divine purpose? Does it not appear
that the desire of feminists for the priesthood is not motivated by saving
faith, so willing are they to subordinate the Tradition of the Church to their
worldly goals. Then, too, we have every reason to believe that they are
rumaging through that Tradition to find support of that "cause," not in order
to discover whether or not it is God-pleasing.

In that case, we need to ask a few more questions: are Orthodox
feminists willing to submit their arguments to the same analysis to which they
have subjected the historical practices of their Church? Might they not
discover that they have incorporated into their thinking another brand of
stereotyping and discrimination? Do they have any suspicion that their opinions
are destined to revision, if not obsolescence in the grand scheme of the cosmic
process; and, ironically, by the same forces of history that they imagine will
inevitably disenfranchise the traditional ways of the Church? In truth, they
have lost sight of the Christian imperative that the Holy Spirit preserves and
protects the teachings of the Church. Their duty as daughters (and sons), is to
humbly accept, defend and assimilate the Faith. We have yet to discover in them
a fear of transgressing "the ancient landmarks the fathers have
errected(Prov. 23:28 LXX).

The Orthodox partisans of women in the priesthood view their "bold
initiative" as a new enlightenment. The late Elizabeth Behr-Sigel (often called
"the grandmother of Western Orthodoxy"), Kyriaki Kridoyanes Fitzgerald, Nonna
Vera Harrison, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Leonine B. Liveris, Eva
Catafygiotou-Topping, etc., argue that their efforts have not the intention of
overthrowing Tradition but giving to it a "new perspective," a claim they have
evidenced in literary vehicles, such as the feminist-ecumenist journals,
Massachusetts' own St. Nina Quarterly and Australia's Mary/Martha.
They have been encouraged by the support of the Patriarchs of
Constantinople and Antioch who have arranged conferenceswith no
little help from the WCCby means of which the proponents of woman's
ordination are given the opportunity to publicly ventilate their
frustration.

Contrary to the thinking of these "Westernizers,"(7) the place of
women in the Church, to repeat, has been permanently settled by the Apostles
and, therefore, cannot be altered; at least, not in the Orthodoxy in which I
was nurtured. Indeed, a male priesthood has been the uninterrupted
Judeo-Christian practice for six millennia. One cannot but grieve the attitude
of feminists, such as L.B. Leveris, who, because she conceives the
"mistreatment" of women as "androcentric prejudices," urges Orthodox women "to
break the silence imposed on them not by the genuine tradition of the Church,
but by social custom and convention."(8) Hers is a proud and futile
protestation.

Let us be clear on this matter: the Church has never denied
women admission to the priesthood, because the "gift" (charisma) was
never offered to them by Christ, Put in other words, the female has never been
deprived of the office, because she was never eligible for it. The
"equality" of the sexes (in the modern sense) has never been part of the
Church's thinking about the priesthood. Her world-view has always been
hierarchical. As C.S. Lewis said, "I do not remember the text in Scripture, nor
the Fathers...which asserts it."(9) To be sure, men and women share the "image
of God" and, therefore, have a common humanity; but "the primacy of honor"
belongs to the male both in the "order of creation" and the "order of
redemption." The first, belonging to the Genesis account, ordains the
relationship between the male for whom the female was made as a help-mate. The
"order of redemption" is prefigured in the covenant between Yahweh and old
Israel, and realized in the union of Christ and the Church. His death on the
Cross, among other things, is the act of sacrificial love of the male Redeemer
for His female Companion. The Eucharist, of course, is their wedding
banquet.(10)

Notes

1. Ep. Cyp. LXXV, 10 NPNF. Most of the quotations from the
Fathers are taken from The Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene-Post
(ANF, NPNF), The Fathers of the Church (FOC), Ancient Christian
Writers (ACW) translations. Otherwise, they are translated from the J. P.
Migne collection: the Greek Fathers (PG), the Latin Fathers (PL); also from
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (J. D. Mansi, Paris,
1901-1927.).

2. Ep. IX, 26 PL 59 55.

3. Mansi [vol. XVI], 565.

4. Laodicea, Can. 11.

5. Bishop Kallistos (Ware), "Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ,"
in Women and the Priesthood. Ed. by T. Hopko. Crest-wood (NY), 1999, p.
157. In the 1983 edition, His Grace wrote, "Those... who ordain women as
minister... are not however creating priests, but dispensing with the
priesthood altogether" (p. 27). In his interview with Teva Regule for St.
Nina Quarterly (11 June 1997), he not only calls for women "as teachers in
the pastoral ministry of the Church," but also they will become deaconesses,
readers, chanters and acolytes. He questions the authority of the Ecumenical
Council to restrict the place of women in the Church. He thinks women should be
permitted to enter the sanctuary. He concludes the interview with the
remarkable statement that Christ's maleness is of little relevance to the
concept of the Christian priesthood.

7. Madame Behr-Sigel thinks that a "Westernized" Orthodoxy would be
more congenial to the idea of the ordination of women to the sacerdotal
priesthood. She is under the mistaken impression that the "mind" of "the
Eastern Church" ought to be stretched (The Ordination of Women in the
Orthodox Church. Geneva, 2000, p. 5).